@DaveReidUK
I don't see why that should come as a surprise - see my previous post on the protocol of accident investigation.
Dave I am quite familiar with the protocol of a SAFETY investigation and agree with you 100% on the UK AAIB role. AAIB shall stay silent both from a safety and from a criminal investigation point of view. The fact that we have a UK manufacturer here makes that requirement even more strict.
So what I am talking about is the way in which this multinational mixed investigation is running.
What happens here is that the investigation till now is a confusing mix of criminal and safety investigation. We have seen in for example the Lubitz case that a (French) criminal prosecutor operates under different rules. And also that that investigation was neither a showcase for clear separation between criminal and safety investigation.
In the LaMia case a number of people have been arrested and interrogated before safety investigators have had any chance (as far as we know) to interview them. And others probably have a warrant out for them. Which can be seriously 'damaging the cause of safety' from a purely safety investigation point of view.
If this investigation would predominantly be a criminal investigation, then it is surprising that a number of government and public officials have their verdict out before presenting any facts. Innocent until proven quilty and such. Surprising even if we assume that in a number of cases part of their 'message' will be 'lost in translation'.
In both criminal and safety investigation cases there are means and protocols in place that allow investigators to initiate and publish 'early' recommendations and actions.
In this case there appear to be a number of issues ... the 4h22/4h22, and the fact that flight release authority is not clear, ... that might not need to have to wait for publication of 'suggestions' in tandem with the first preliminary 30 days report.
Still striking.